Leave Luke allown. He is a good kid trying the best that he can. You are so filled with HATE you can not even enjoy all the nice things that have happened to Pittsburgh. We have a green conevction center which everyone wants to see. Don't forget that we have 2 green statiums that don't need no air conditions or heaters.

I haven't Blogged in a long time ,but as my husband would say "you have stepped on my balls".

Interesting choice of words by Mr. Ravenstahl. As if you acknowledge there are dots to be connected.

Here is a starting point:Mr. Verbanac said yesterday. "My partner and I, Charles Zappala, were big believers in the potential of the project,"

Here is a connection that occured under your watch Mr.Ravenstahl. This city contract was handed out to Mr Verbanic's business partner at the same time you were actively "bouncing ideas" and "soliciting advice" from "your friend" Mr. Verbanic.

The hard copies of the e-mails I have arrived in a variety of different fonts and formats. It immediately suggested to me that it all wasn't from the same source. Little wonder -- there is no shortage of folks the administration has outraged or ticked off over the years. And as to why now, it takes some serious guts to pass that kind of stuff along or go public with it, and nothing focuses the mind like a deadline.

Not that the question isn't a weak and transparent diversion.

The real questions are why doesn't Luke pay for his own political consulting services, and why does Verbanac do all that work for free? Actually, those two questions answer each other nicely, the next is why does the Mayor value this Verbanac's counsel (or whatever he offers) so highly. What is it about him.

The last payment was in June. I also believe there is a $25,000 liquidated damages provision for breach of his confidentiality agreement. The PG has the agreement, but I cannot find it right now. He did agree not to disclose information about his allegations, directly or indirectly.

How come Verbanac never contributed $5 to Luke? You'd figure if he's such a friend, if he's that frequent an advisor, if they share a common vision, if he raises money from others for Luke (or at least Luke seems to think that's possibly likely to be the case, wink-wink) ... not one dollar direct from Verbanac to Ravenstahl? Why would that be?

Also: explain to me how does it reflect poorly on a candidate who only airs the laundry? What would be troubling is if Acklin came into receipt of these emails and did nothing. Then I think we could worry.

@Bram: +1 -- I also get the feeling something is plain wrong here. Pittsburgh is not and should not be Tammany Hall and LukeR is no Boss Tweed.

So by lying twice about Verbanac being just a "friend" with "no business" with the City and a guy he "bounces ideas off of from time to time" we now hear -- only after the emails are made public -- that Verbanac is a fundraiser, a lobbyist to Orie (but, of course, no one will call him that) on the pension issue? Even if Acklin can't "prove" corruption...he aleady has proved that Mayor Ravenstahl isn't competent enough to do his job. I didn't vote for Verbanac to be my mayor. And they were attacking Harris for voting in Sewickley while living in the City!

At the very least, it's just more and more evidence of the Mayor's poor judgment.

What interests me most is that Verbanac, or one of his business cronies, sits on various advisory commissions that control the multi-county big-vision regional plan. Isn't this attempt at over reaching influence what lead to Pat Ford's resignation via the letter from HUD?

Wow. Just read an article in the PG from 2006 questioning Verbanac's role in O'Connor's administration. O"'Connor has business friends who wield clout,"Sunday, August 13, 2006By Dan Fitzpatrick, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (naming Zappala and Verbanac as well as Glen Mahone and Bill Lieberman). Conveniently for Verbanac (and Mayor Ravenstahl), he was able then to make the same remarks: no formal role, no money exchanged hands, I'm just an adviser, I have no business with the city, I'm able to help so I do. Curious how it's the same names over and over...and yet, nothing more than an article or 2 every once in a while. No wonder the press isn't running with this -- they've had this story of undue influence and potential corruption for at least 3 years and did nothing with it. I'm glad Team Acklin has had the guts to bring it to the people (as much as he can), but it's apparently going to be viewed of just how things are done. How sad.

Update: WTAE TV is rumored to have emailed a friend with notification that debate #2, earlier this week, will be posted to the web site, in full, later today. I was upset that the full debate wasn't uploaded.

Anon 10:36 -- No. See, e.g., Symm v. United States 439 U.S. 1105 (1979) (per curiam) (affirming without coment district court opinion upholding the right of students to register either at permanent or temporary address).

Symm vs. U.S. most obviously applies to full-time undergraduates. Harris had graduated from Princeton and worked three years in D.C., then moved back to Pittsburgh, took up residence in Shadyside, but still wants to claim his permanent residence is at home, with Mommy and Franco, while he goes to two different grad programs? What a crock.

He paid city taxes the whole time. Or at least that's what he said in the debate.

It's fishy alright. Fishy as hell. But not nearly as fishy as this Verbanac stink.

If you can demonstrate a principled basis on which to distinguish graduate students living in proximity to their studies from undergraduate students living in proximity to theirs, I'd love to hear it. Do you have to continue from college to graduate school unabated? What if you move home for a year between college and graduate school? Does marital status figure into this? Employment in a "permanent" capacity? What if you lose your home?

Not only can you not answer those questions with a workable standard, there are policy implications to what you propose. First, if you so choose to register in the locality where you attend school, you should be able to do so, and reap the benefits of the public services provided by your preferred officials. We'd have a skewed system indeed if Pitt/CMU students couldn't register here. By contrast, you'd limit a person's choice in educational opportunities if you required them to give up their permanent domiciliary to go to school. Voting is a fundamental right in this country and we tend to err on the side of protecting those here.

You may not like that Harris didn't register in Pittsburgh. You may not like what that says about his sense of togetherness or commitment to local issues. But to call it fishy or illegal is just not supported by the law, nor do I think it would be supported by social norms (e.g., did Acklin change his registration to Washington DC or Cambridge MA? Did Luke register at his podunk alma mater? I know my registration didn't change until after I graduated from grad school.) If you don't like Harris, even because of this issue, say so. But don't play armchair Jack McCoy.

I have to agree with anon 8:40 about the voter registration deal. I remember many years ago, the same thing happened to me. Moved several times before I settled in. Left my voter registration the same, Mom & Dad's house until I was settled. I still voted, even as a young person.

Many students and young people do the same. I am still voting for Acklin, but not because Dok wasn't registered in Pittsburgh. I like Dok, I think he is very energetic, but I really like Acklin, he is also energetic and a little more in tune with real Pittsburgh issues.

Disclaimers

All views expressed in these posts and in my own comments are my own and my own alone, and do not reflect the views of any of my employers, clients, partners or patrons, past or present, real or imagined. Adding comments is a privilege, not a right. The blog author reserves the right not to publish or to remove comments for any reason, which most often will include obscenity, harassment, personal attacks, "outing" people, attempts to make the blog unpalatable to others, ASOIAF book spoilers, incessant semi-coherent rambling, and malicious and/or knowing falsehood. However, the blog author is under no obligation to do so in a timely manner or in any other manner whatsoever, and is in no way responsible for any comments written on this blog by other parties. Please fact-check everything you read relating to politics scrupulously, especially on the Internet and especially in blog comments and on message boards.